Lidocaine for Cancer Pain in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Enhancing Safety in Tumescent Liposuction: Managing Sedation-Related Respiratory Issues and Serious Complications Under Deep Sedation with the Propofol-Ketamine Protocol

BACKGROUND

Over the past 4 years, aesthetic surgery, notably liposuction, has substantially increased. Tumescent liposuction, a popular technique, has two variants-true tumescent liposuction (TTL) and semi-tumescent liposuction. While TTL reduces risks, it has limitations. There is no literature reported on semi-tumescent liposuction under deep sedation using the propofol-ketamine protocol, which is proposed as a potentially safe alternative.

METHODS

The retrospective analysis covered 8 years and included 3094 patients performed for tumescent liposuction under deep sedation, utilizing the propofol-ketamine protocol. The evaluation of patient safety involved an examination of potential adverse events with a specific focus on respiratory issues related to sedation, including instances of mask ventilation.

RESULTS

Among the 3094 cases, no fatalities were recorded. Noteworthy events included 43 mask ventilation instances, primarily occurring in the initial 10 min. Twelve cases experienced surgery cancellation due to various factors, including respiratory issues. Three patients were transferred to upper-level hospitals, while another three required blood transfusions. Vigilant management prevented significant complications, and other adverse events like venous thromboembolism (VTE), fat embolism, severe lidocaine toxicity, and so on were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of 3094 tumescent liposuction cases highlighted the overall safety profile of the propofol-ketamine protocol under deep sedation. The scarcity of severe complications underscores its viability. The study emphasizes the significance of thorough preoperative assessments, careful patient selection, and awareness of potential complications. Prompt interventions, particularly in addressing sedation-related respiratory issues, further contribute to positive outcomes for patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Anesthesia and cancer recurrence: a narrative review

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. With the increasingly aging population, the number of emerging cancer cases is expected to increase markedly in the foreseeable future. Surgical resection with adjuvant therapy is the best available option for the potential cure of many solid tumors; thus, approximately 80% of patients with cancer undergo at least one surgical procedure during their disease. Agents used in general anesthesia can modulate cytokine release, transcription factors, and/or oncogenes. This can affect host immunity and the capability of cancer cells to survive and migrate, not only during surgery but for up to several weeks after surgery. However, it remains unknown whether exposure to anesthetic agents affects cancer recurrence or metastasis. This review explores the current literature to explain whether and how the choice of anesthetic and perioperative medication affect cancer surgery outcomes.

Serum lidocaine (lignocaine) concentrations during prolonged perioperative infusion in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: A secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Perioperative lidocaine (lignocaine) infusions are being employed with increasing frequency. The determinants of systemic lidocaine concentrations during prolonged administration are unclear. In the Long-term Outcomes after Lidocaine Infusions for PostOperative Pain (LOLIPOP) pilot trial, the impact of infusion duration and body size metrics on serum lidocaine concentrations was examined with regression models in 48 women undergoing breast cancer surgery. Lidocaine was delivered as an intravenous bolus (1.5 mg/kg) and infusion (2 mg/kg per h) intraoperatively, followed by a 12-h subcutaneous infusion (1.33 mg/kg per h) postoperatively. Dosing was based on total body weight. Wound infiltration with other long-acting local anaesthetics was permitted. Protein binding and pharmacogenomic data were also collected. Lidocaine concentrations (median (interquartile range) (range)) during prolonged administration were in the safe and potentially therapeutic range: post-anaesthesia care unit 2.16 (1.73-2.82) (1.12-6.06) µg/ml; ward 1.41 (1.22-1.75) (0.64-2.81) µg/ml. Concentrations increased non-linearly during the early intravenous phase of administration (mean rise 1.21 µg/ml per hour of infusion, P = 0.007) but reached a pseudo steady-state during the later subcutaneous phase. Higher dose rates received per kilogram of lean (P = 0.004), adjusted (P = 0.006) and ideal body weight (P = 0.009) were associated with higher steady-state concentrations. The lidocaine free fraction was unaffected by the presence of ropivacaine, and phenotypes linked to slow metabolism were infrequent. Serum lidocaine concentrations reached a pseudo steady-state during a 12-h postoperative infusion. Greater precision in steady-state concentrations can be achieved by dosing on lean body weight versus adjusted or ideal body weight (equivalent lean body weight doses: intravenous bolus 2.5 mg/kg; intravenous infusion 3.33 mg/kg per h; subcutaneous infusion 2.22 mg/kg per h.

Cancer Pain Management: A Narrative Review of Current Concepts, Strategies, and Techniques

Pain is frequently reported during cancer disease, and it still remains poorly controlled in 40% of patients. Recent developments in oncology have helped to better control pain. Targeted treatments may cure cancer disease and significantly increase survival. Therefore, a novel population of patients (cancer survivors) has emerged, also enduring chronic pain (27.6% moderate to severe pain). The present review discusses the different options currently available to manage pain in (former) cancer patients in light of progress made in the last decade. Major progress in the field includes the recent development of a chronic cancer pain taxonomy now included in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) and the update of the WHO analgesic ladder. Until recently, cancer pain management has mostly relied on pharmacotherapy, with opioids being considered as the mainstay. The opioids crisis has prompted the reassessment of opioids use in cancer patients and survivors. This review focuses on the current utilization of opioids, the neuropathic pain component often neglected, and the techniques and non-pharmacological strategies available which help to personalize patient treatment. Cancer pain management is now closer to the management of chronic non-cancer pain, i.e., "an integrative and supportive pain care" aiming to improve patient's quality of life.

Lidocaine for Neuropathic Cancer Pain (LiCPain): study protocol for a mixed-methods pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Many patients experience unrelieved neuropathic cancer-related pain. Most current analgesic therapies have psychoactive side effects, lack efficacy data for this indication and have potential medication-related harms. The local anaesthetic lidocaine (lignocaine) has the potential to help manage neuropathic cancer-related pain when administered as an extended, continuous subcutaneous infusion. Data support lidocaine as a promising, safe agent in this setting, warranting further evaluation in robust, randomised controlled trials. This protocol describes the design of a pilot study to evaluate this intervention and explains the pharmacokinetic, efficacy and adverse effects evidence informing the design.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A mixed-methods pilot study will determine the feasibility of an international first, definitive phase III trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an extended continuous subcutaneous infusion of lidocaine for neuropathic cancer-related pain. This study will comprise: a phase II double-blind randomised controlled parallel-group pilot of subcutaneous infusion of lidocaine hydrochloride 10% w/v (3000 mg/30 mL) or placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%) over 72 hours for neuropathic cancer-related pain, a pharmacokinetic substudy and a qualitative substudy of patients' and carers' experiences. The pilot study will provide important safety data and help inform the methodology of a definitive trial, including testing proposed recruitment strategy, randomisation, outcome measures and patients' acceptability of the methodology, as well as providing a signal of whether this area should be further investigated.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Participant safety is paramount and standardised assessments for adverse effects are built into the trial protocol. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. This study will be considered suitable to progress to a phase III study if there is a completion rate where the CI includes 80% and excludes 60%. The protocol and Patient Information and Consent Form have been approved by Sydney Local Health District (Concord) Human Research Ethics Committee 2019/ETH07984 and University of Technology Sydney ETH17-1820.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ANZCTR ACTRN12617000747325.

Integrating mechanistic-based and classification-based concepts into perioperative pain management: an educational guide for acute pain physicians

Chronic pain begins with acute pain. Physicians tend to classify pain by duration (acute vs chronic) and mechanism (nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic). Although this taxonomy may facilitate diagnosis and documentation, such categories are to some degree arbitrary constructs, with significant overlap in terms of mechanisms and treatments. In clinical practice, there are myriad different definitions for chronic pain and a substantial portion of chronic pain involves mixed phenotypes. Classification of pain based on acuity and mechanisms informs management at all levels and constitutes a critical part of guidelines and treatment for chronic pain care. Yet specialty care is often siloed, with advances in understanding lagging years behind in some areas in which these developments should be at the forefront of clinical practice. For example, in perioperative pain management, enhanced recovery protocols are not standardized and tend to drive treatment without consideration of mechanisms, which in many cases may be incongruent with personalized medicine and mechanism-based treatment. In this educational document, we discuss mechanisms and classification of pain as it pertains to commonly performed surgical procedures. Our goal is to provide a clinical reference for the acute pain physician to facilitate pain management decision-making (both diagnosis and therapy) in the perioperative period.

Using a multimodal approach to manage difficult visceral cancer pain: A case study

Difficult visceral cancer pain is defined as pain that does not improve with conventional non-pharmacological and pharmacological strategies, including opioids and adjuvants, and occurs in up to 15% of patients with cancer. In oncological practice, we must be prepared to establish strategies for dealing with such complex cases. Different analgesic strategies have been described in the literature, including managing refractory pain through palliative sedation; however, this might become a dilemma from a clinical and bioethical point of view in end-of-life situations. We present the case of a young male patient with moderately differentiated intestinal-type adenocarcinoma of the left colon, with intra-abdominal sepsis, and for whom despite the multimodal treatment for difficult visceral cancer pain, the pain was refractory leading to palliative sedation. Difficult visceral cancer pain is a pathology that affects the quality of life of patients and is a challenge for pain specialists, for both pharmacological and non-pharmacological management.

Apoptosis, Proliferation, and Autophagy Are Involved in Local Anesthetic-Induced Cytotoxicity of Human Breast Cancer Cells

Breast cancer accounts for almost one quarter of all female cancers worldwide, and more than 90% of those who are diagnosed with breast cancer undergo mastectomy or breast conservation surgery. Local anesthetics effectively inhibit the invasion of cancer cells at concentrations that are used in surgical procedures. The limited treatment options for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) demonstrate unmet clinical needs. In this study, four local anesthetics, lidocaine, levobupivacaine, bupivacaine, and ropivacaine, were applied to two breast tumor cell types, TNBC MDA-MB-231 cells and triple-positive breast cancer BT-474 cells. In addition to the induction of apoptosis and the suppression of the cellular proliferation rate, the four local anesthetics decreased the levels of reactive oxygen species and increased the autophagy elongation indicator in both cell types. Our combination index analysis with doxorubicin showed that ropivacaine had a synergistic effect on the two cell types, and lidocaine had a synergistic effect only in MDA-MB-231 cells; the others had no synergistic effects on doxorubicin. Lidocaine contributed significantly to the formation of autophagolysosomes in a dose-dependent manner in MDA-MB-231 cells but not in BT-474 cells. Our study demonstrated that the four local anesthetics can reduce tumor growth and proliferation and promote apoptosis and autophagy.

Intravenous Lidocaine for Treatment of Chronic Pain: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction

Neuropathic pain is a widespread problem with a big impact on quality of life. The currently used drug regimens are often insufficiently effective or cause - sometimes unacceptable - side effects. Intravenous lidocaine could be an alternative treatment, by blocking spontaneous depolarization and hyperexcitability in upregulated sodium channels in nociceptors. Research so far has shown varying results but the treatment protocols differed a lot and follow-up was usually short. In our hospital, lidocaine infusions have been applied for many years in a unique treatment protocol consisting of a relatively high dose of lidocaine (1000 mg) administered over 25 hours. Our aim is to share information on both the efficacy and safety of this treatment schedule.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in all patients who received a lidocaine infusion between January 2014 and January 2018. The standard infusion protocol consists of a total of 1000 mg lidocaine administered intravenously during 25 hours (40 mg/hour). Pain diagnoses were stratified into 15 groups, in agreement with diagnoses used in daily practice. Effectiveness of the treatment was classified as effect or no effect based on the description found in the chart.

Results

We included 282 patients, with a median age of 58 years and 64% of whom were female. Patients with myofascial pain syndrome, peripheral (mono)neuropathy, small fiber neuropathy and vascular disease benefited most. Patients with cancer pain, postherpetic neuralgia, chemotherapy-induced neuropathy and radicular pain showed the least pain improvement. There were no serious adverse events.

Conclusion

In selected patients, lidocaine infusions may be a safe and efficacious treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. More prospective research is needed to further determine the optimal dosing, duration and interval of lidocaine infusion therapy, and to better understand in which specific patient categories this treatment is most beneficial.

One-step fabrication of lidocaine/CalliSpheres® composites for painless transcatheter arterial embolization

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) is one of the first-line treatments for advanced hepatocellular cancer. The pain caused by TAE is a stark complication, which remains to be prevented by biomedical engineering methods.

METHODS

Herein, a commercial embolic agent CalliSpheres^® bead (CB) was functionally modified with lidocaine (Lid) using an electrostatic self-assembly technique. The products were coded as CB/Lid-n (n = 0, 5, 10, corresponding to the relative content of Lid). The chemical compositions, morphology, drug-loading, and drug-releasing ability of CB/Lid-n were comprehensively investigated. The biocompatibility was determined by hemolysis assay, live/dead cell staining assay, CCK8 assay, immunofluorescence (IHC) staining assay and quantitative real-time PCR. The thermal withdrawal latency (TWL) and edema ratio (ER) were performed to evaluate the analgesia of CB/Lid-n using a plantar inflammation model. A series of histological staining, including immunohistochemistry (IL-6, IL-10, TGF-β and Navi1.7) and TUNEL were conducted to reveal the underlying mechanism of anti-tumor effect of CB/Lid-n on a VX2-tumor bearing model.

RESULTS

Lid was successfully loaded onto the surface of CalliSpheres^® bead, and the average diameter of CalliSpheres^® bead increased along with the dosage of Lid. CB/Lid-n exhibited desirable drug-loading ratio, drug-embedding ratio, and sustained drug-release capability. CB/Lid-n had mild toxicity towards L929 cells, while triggered no obvious hemolysis. Furthermore, CB/Lid-n could improve the carrageenan-induced inflammation response micro-environment in vivo and in vitro. We found that CB/Lid-10 could selectively kill tumor by blocking blood supply, inhibiting cell proliferation, and promoting cell apoptosis. CB/Lid-10 could also release Lid to relieve post-operative pain, mainly by remodeling the harsh inflammation micro-environment (IME).

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, CB/Lid-10 has relatively good biocompatibility and bioactivity, and it can serve as a promising candidate for painless transcatheter arterial embolization.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on pain after head and neck cancer surgery (ELICO trial): A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment of postoperative pain after ear, nose and throat (ENT) cancer surgery is mainly morphine administration. Additional systemic lidocaine has shown promising results in some surgical procedures.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective was to evaluate morphine consumption in the first 48 postoperative hours after intra-operative lidocaine infusion during major ENT cancer surgery.

DESIGN

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Bicentric study including a university hospital and a major cancer centre, conducted from December 2016 to December 2019.

PATIENTS

A total of 144 patients undergoing major ENT cancer surgery were included.

INTERVENTION

The patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous lidocaine or placebo during surgery and in the recovery room.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Endpoints were postoperative morphine consumption in the first 24 and 48 h postoperatively, intra-operative remifentanil consumption, adverse events occurrence and assessment 3 to 6 months after surgery with the McGill pain questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 118 patients were included (lidocaine n  = 57; placebo n  = 61, 26 patients were excluded). There was no significant difference in morphine consumption during the first 48 postoperative hours in the lidocaine group compared with the placebo group with a median [IQR] of 0.60 [0.30 to 1.03] mg kg -1 vs. 0.57 [0.37 to 0.96] mg kg -1 , total dose 44 [21 to 73.3] mg vs. 38 [23.3 to 56.5] mg, P  = 0.92.There was no significant difference between the two groups in any of the other endpoints, including at follow up 3 to 6 months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous lidocaine in ENT cancer surgery did not show any additional analgesic or morphine-sparing effect 48 h after surgery. Three to six months after surgery, there was no significant difference in pain scores or consumption of analgesics. Patients treated pre-operatively with opioids were not evaluated in the study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02894710 and EUDRACT number 2015-005799-90.

Lidocaine Suppresses Gastric Cancer Development Through Circ_ANO5/miR-21-5p/LIFR Axis

BACKGROUND

Lidocaine has been manifested to exert anti-tumor role in gastric cancer (GC) progression. However, the action mechanism by which Lidocaine functions in GC has not been fully elucidated.

AIM

The study aimed to reveal the molecular mechanism of Lidocaine in GC progression.

METHODS

Cell clonogenicity and viability were assessed by colony formation and methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium assays, respectively. Transwell assay was employed to detect cell migration and invasion. Flow cytometry was implemented to monitor cell apoptosis. Relative expression of circular RNA ANO5 (circ_ANO5), microRNA (miR)-21-5p and Leukemia inhibitory factor receptor (LIFR) was examined by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Western blot assay was performed to analyze the levels of LIFR and cell metastasis-related proteins. The target relationship between miR-21-5p and circ_ANO5 or LIFR was confirmed by dual-luciferase reporter assay. In addition, xenograft model was established to explore the role of Lidocaine in vivo.

RESULTS

Lidocaine inhibited cell proliferation, migration and invasion, while promoted apoptosis of GC cells. Lidocaine upregulated circ_ANO5 and LIFR expression, but downregulated miR-21-5p expression in GC cells. Additionally, expression of circ_ANO5 and LIFR was decreased, while miR-21-5p expression was increased in GC cells. Circ_ANO5 depletion or miR-21-5p overexpression attenuated Lidocaine-induced anti-proliferative and anti-metastatic effects on GC cells. Circ_ANO5 could sponge miR-21-5p, and miR-21-5p targeted LIFR. Moreover, Lidocaine suppressed the tumor growth in vivo.

CONCLUSION

Lidocaine might GC cell malignancy by modulating circ_ANO5/miR-21-5p/LIFR axis, highlighting a novel insight for GC treatment.

Efficacy of Intravenous Lidocaine for Pain Relief in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

To compare the efficacy of intravenous (IV) lidocaine with standard analgesics (NSAIDS, opioids) for pain control due to any cause in the emergency department.

Methods

The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were explored from 1st January 2000 to 30th March 2021 and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IV lidocaine with a control group of standard analgesics were included.

Results

Twelve RCTs including 1,351 patients were included. The cause of pain included abdominal pain, renal or biliary colic, traumatic pain, radicular low back pain, critical limb ischemia, migraine, tension-type headache, and pain of unknown origin. On pooled analysis, we found no statistically significant difference in pain scores between IV lidocaine and control group at 15 min (MD: −0.24 95% CI: −1.08, 0.61 I2 = 81% p = 0.59), 30 min (MD: −0.24 95% CI: −1.03, 0.55 I2 = 86% p = 0.55), 45 min (MD: 0.31 95% CI: −0.66, 1.29 I2 = 66% p = 0.53), and 60 min (MD: 0.59 95% CI: −0.26, 1.44 I2 = 75% p = 0.18). There was no statistically significant difference in the need for rescue analgesics between the two groups (OR: 1.45 95% CI: 0.82, 2.56 I2 = 41% p = 0.20), but on subgroup analysis, the need for rescue analgesics was significantly higher with IV lidocaine in studies on abdominal pain but not for musculoskeletal pain. On meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of side-effects between the two study groups (OR: 1.09 95% CI: 0.59, 2.02 I2 = 48% p = 0.78).

Conclusion

IV lidocaine can be considered as an alternative analgesic for pain control in the ED. However, its efficacy may not be higher than standard analgesics. Further RCTs with a large sample size are needed to corroborate the current conclusions.

Anesthesia and Cancer, Friend or Foe? A Narrative Review

Cancer remains the leading cause of death worldwide with close to 10 million deaths reported annually. Due to growth of the advanced age cohort in our population, it is predicted that the number of new cancer cases diagnosed between now until 2035 is to reach potentially 24 million individuals, a staggering increase in a relatively short time period. For many solid tumors, surgical resection along with chemotherapy is the best available approach to a potential cure which leads to almost 80% of cancer patients undergoing at least one surgical procedure during the course of their disease. During surgical intervention, the exposure to general anesthesia can be lengthy, complex and often involves various modalities resulting in an important question as to the role, if any, anesthesia may play in primary recurrence or metastatic conversion. Many components of the stress and inflammatory responses exhibited in the perioperative period can contribute to cancer growth and invasion. The agents used to induce and maintain general anesthesia have variable interactions with the immune and neuroendocrine systems and can influence the stress response during surgery. Thus, debating the best type of anesthesia that would help to attenuate sympathetic and/or pro-inflammatory responses while modulating cytokine release and transcription factors/oncogenes remains at the forefront. This may affect inducible cancer cell survival and migratory abilities not only intra-operatively, but also during the immediate post-operative phase of recovery. The ultimate question becomes how and whether the choice of anesthesia may influence the outcomes of cancer surgery with two major approaches being considered, i.e., regional and general anesthesia as well as the various hypnotics, analgesics and sympatholytics commonly used. In this review, we will address the latest information as to the role that anesthesia may play during cancer surgery with specific focus on primary recurrence and metastasis.

Oral and parenteral anti-neuropathic agents for the management of pain and discomfort in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a highly prevalent and economically burdensome condition; and pain is often the most unpleasant, disruptive, and difficult-to-treat symptom. Visceral hypersensitivity is a common feature driving pain in IBS, suggesting that neuropathic mechanisms may be implicated. We conducted a systematic review of available evidence to examine the role of anti-neuropathic medicines in the management of pain in IBS.

METHODS

We systematically searched scientific repositories for trials investigating conventional oral, and/or parenteral, pharmaceutical antineuropathic treatments in patients with IBS. We summarized key participant characteristics, outcomes related to pain (primary outcome), and selected secondary outcomes.

KEY RESULTS

We included 13 studies (n = 629 participants): six investigated amitriptyline, three duloxetine, three pregabalin, and one gabapentin. There was considerable methodological and statistical heterogeneity, so we performed a narrative synthesis and limited meta-analysis. Amitriptyline was most extensively studied, though only in diarrhea-predominant patients. In individual trials, amitriptyline, pregabalin and gabapentin generally appeared beneficial for pain outcomes. While duloxetine studies tended to report improvements in pain, all were un-controlled trials with high risk of bias. Meta-analysis of three studies (n = 278) yielded a pooled relative-risk of 0.50 (95%CI 0.38-0.66) for not improving with anti-neuropathic agent vs control. We did not identify any eligible studies investigating the role of parenteral anti-neuropathics.

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

Anti-neuropathic analgesics may improve pain in IBS, and deserve further, high-quality investigation, potentially considering parenteral administration and agents with minimal gastrointestinal motility effects. Investigation of amitriptyline's efficacy in non-diarrhea-predominant subtypes is currently lacking, and we recommend particular caution for its use in IBS-C.

Hoigne Syndrome Secondary to Intravenous Lidocaine in a Woman with Metastatic Ewing Sarcoma

Introduction: Palliative care providers are increasingly using lidocaine infusions for refractory cancer pain. Hoigne syndrome (HS) is a rare psychiatric reaction that has been reported after local anesthetic usage, but has not been described in the palliative care setting. Case Report: We report a case of a young woman with metastatic Ewing sarcoma who developed HS days after starting a lidocaine infusion. Given the improvement in her pain since initiation of lidocaine, the decision was made to continue the infusion and medically manage her HS. She had improvement with the addition of benzodiazepines and lowering the lidocaine infusion rate. Discussion: Palliative care providers should be aware of HS as a possible side effect of lidocaine infusions and the unique challenges in managing it in patients near the end of life.

Perioperative pain, analgesics and cancer-related outcomes: where do we stand?

Cancer-related pain is one of the most common and debilitating symptoms among cancer patients. Undertreated cancer-related pain interferes with daily activities and increases morbidity and mortality. While opioids continue to play an essential role in treating moderate to severe cancer-related pain, they are associated with many adverse effects including misuse. While preclinical and retrospective studies have shown a negative association between opioid use and cancer outcomes, randomized control trials demonstrate that opioid use does not influence cancer recurrence. Additionally, analgesics and adjuvants used for perioperatively or chronic pain control are unlikely to improve oncological outcomes. This article focuses on the pharmacological management of cancer-related pain and offers an overview regarding the use of these medications perioperatively and the cancer outcomes.

Parenteral Lidocaine for Complex Cancer Pain in the Home or Inpatient Hospice Setting: A Review and Synthesis of the Evidence

Background: Cancer pain can remain refractory despite escalating opioids and adjuvants. Systemic Lidocaine is an option, but current approaches are hospital centered. While advantageous in advanced cancer, evidence is lacking for parenteral Lidocaine use in community-based care. Objectives: Review evidence for parenteral lidocaine in complex cancer pain outside the hospital setting. Design: Systematic review of peer-reviewed articles of any study design, including reviews. Search in four databases used keyword variations of "cancer," "pain," "Lidocaine," and "parenteral." Search was extended through reference lists of full texts assessed. Abstracted data from articles screened and selected were synthesized narratively by a palliative care clinician in Singapore. Results: Eight hundred eighty-three articles identified were screened by title and abstract. Twenty-eight full texts were assessed. Seven articles fulfilled criteria for synthesis of findings. A total of 73 patients received parenteral Lidocaine for mixed pains, reported collectively in 1 retrospective chart review, 3 practice guidelines, 2 case series, and 1 case study. Intravenous or subcutaneous Lidocaine was commenced in hospital or hospice and continued at home. Dosages and administration schedules varied, involving slow bolus with continuous infusion or the latter alone, for up to 240 days. All produced positive outcomes, with no severe adverse events. Monitoring included routine vital signs and conscious levels; electrocardiogram, liver, and renal function tests were uncommon. Lidocaine levels were not consistently assessed. Conclusion: Parenteral Lidocaine can be effective and safe in the community setting. More empirical studies are needed to inform patient selection and treatment protocol, and to validate expected outcomes.

Subcutaneous Lidocaine Infusion for Complex Cancer Pain: A Retrospective Review

This retrospective review assesses the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous lidocaine infusions for complex cancer pain, in a specialist palliative care unit. A retrospective chart review was undertaken of 18 infusions over a 2-year period. Data collected included patient demographics, use of adjuvant analgesics, methadone use and opioid requirements (as oral morphine equivalent daily dose, oMEDD) at three time periods: 24 hours prior to starting infusion, 24 hours after starting infusion and 24 hours after stopping infusion. Data was collected on infusion characteristics, adverse events and the patient's perception of lidocaine efficacy. Eighteen infusions were analyzed; all patients had metastatic cancer with 83.3% having stage IV disease. The majority of patients were prescribed three or more adjuvant analgesics, in addition, methadone was prescribed in 16 oMEDD use both 24 hours after starting, and 24 hours after stopping the lidocaine infusions. Events were reported in three out of 18 infusions, only one minor adverse event was attributed to lidocaine. Thirteen out of 18 infusions were perceived, by patients, to be effective for pain. This retrospective review has shown that a subcutaneous lidocaine infusion is a safe and effective means of managing complex cancer pain in a specialist palliative care unit.

Local Anesthetic Lidocaine and Cancer: Insight Into Tumor Progression and Recurrence

Cancer is a leading contributor to deaths worldwide. Surgery is the primary treatment for resectable cancers. Nonetheless, it also results in inflammatory response, angiogenesis, and stimulated metastasis. Local anesthetic lidocaine can directly and indirectly effect different cancers. The direct mechanisms are inhibiting proliferation and inducing apoptosis via regulating PI3K/AKT/mTOR and caspase-dependent Bax/Bcl2 signaling pathways or repressing cytoskeleton formation. Repression invasion, migration, and angiogenesis through influencing the activation of TNFα-dependent, Src-induced AKT/NO/ICAM and VEGF/PI3K/AKT signaling pathways. Moreover, the indirect influences are immune regulation, anti-inflammation, and postoperative pain relief. This review summarizes the latest evidence that revealed potential clinical benefits of lidocaine in cancer treatment to explore the probable molecular mechanisms and the appropriate dose.

Lidocaine Continuous Subcutaneous Infusion for Neuropathic Pain in Hospice Patients: Safety and Efficacy

Lidocaine continuous subcutaneous infusion (L-CSCI) for neuropathic pain in hospice patients has limited evidence for its safety and efficacy, and guidelines are lacking. This study assesses a series of patients admitted to a hospice over a six-month period that had neuropathic pain and received L-CSCI. The primary outcome was improvement in patient-rated distress from pain following L-CSCI titration. Also assessed were changes in oral morphine equivalent dose (OME), frequency of breakthrough medication, functional status, adverse effects and perception of response. Fifteen patients received L-CSCI for an average of 6.7 days (range 1-92). Average pain distress score decreased by 2 or more in six patients. Positive responses to L-CSCI were documented in the clinical notes of 10 patients. Opioid down-titration occurred in four patients. Lidocaine levels were performed in 3 patients but did not change management. Five patients experienced adverse effects attributable to lidocaine and all responded to simple measures. In conclusion, L-CSCI can help manage neuropathic pain in hospice patients, particularly in those who cannot swallow oral medications. Further systematic research is warranted to establish efficacy and tolerability, and to inform guideline development.

Alleviating Terminal Pediatric Cancer Pain

Terminal cancer pain remains one of the most distressing aspects of pediatric oncology practice. Opioids are the cornerstone of cancer pain management at end-of-life and fortunately, most pain at end-of-life can be managed successfully. This article presents a practical step-by-step approach to alleviating pediatric terminal cancer pain, which can be delivered across settings.

Impact of perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative pain and rapid recovery of patients undergoing gastrointestinal tumor surgery: a randomized, double-blind trial

Background

To explore the effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative pain and the rapid recovery of patients undergoing gastrointestinal tumor surgery.

Methods

The patients who underwent gastrointestinal tumor surgery from May to July 2020 were selected. The patients were randomly divided into the lidocaine group (group L) and control group (group C) by the random number table method, with 60 patients in each group. Both groups of patients received an intravenous drug infusion immediately after induction of tracheal intubation under general anesthesia. In group L, 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine was slowly injected intravenously at a rate of 1.5 mg·kg^-1·h^-1 to the surgical suture, and intravenous inhalation was used to maintain the depth of anesthesia. Group C patients were given the same volume of normal saline. The 2-, 4-, 7-, 14-, 30-, and 90-day numerical rating scale (NRS) and the proportion of chronic post-surgical pain (CPSP) after 3 months for both groups after surgery were recorded. Each patient's postoperative comfort score, requiring analgesia, return of flatus, bowl movement, hospitalization days, hospitalization expenses, and adverse events were also recorded.

Results

One hundred and twenty patients were enrolled but 5 of them failed to complete the treatment process. Therefore, 58 and 57 patients in group L and C were included into the final analysis. The NRS of patients in group L was significantly lower than that of group C at all time points after surgery (P<0.05), and the proportion of CPSP in group L was significantly lower than that of group C (P<0.05). The percentage of patients requiring analgesia and postoperative comfort score of group L was significantly higher than that of group C (P<0.01), patient's return of flatus, bowl movement, hospitalization days, and hospitalization expenses in group L were significantly lower than those in group C (P<0.05). There were no difference of adverse events between the 2 groups (P>0.05).

Conclusions

During the perioperative period of radical gastrointestinal tumor surgery, intravenous lidocaine infusion can reduce acute postoperative pain, promote postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery, and improve postoperative comfort.

Practice review: Evidence-based and effective management of pain in patients with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Pain of a moderate or severe intensity affects over half of patients with advanced cancer and remains undertreated in at least one-third of these patients.

AIM

The aim of this study was to provide a pragmatic overview of the evidence supporting the use of interventions in pain management in advanced cancer and to identify where encouraging preliminary results are demonstrated but further research is required.

DESIGN

A scoping review approach was used to examine the evidence supporting the use of guideline-recommended interventions in pain management practice.

DATA SOURCES

National or international guidelines were selected if they described pain management in adult cancer patients and were written within the last 5 years in English. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2014 to January 2019) was searched for 'cancer' AND 'pain' in the title, abstract or keywords. A MEDLINE search was also made.

RESULTS

A strong opioid remains the drug of choice for treating moderate or severe pain. Bisphosphonates and radiotherapy are also effective for cancer-related bone pain. Optimal management requires a tailored approach, support for self-management and review of treatment outcomes. There is likely a role for non-pharmacological approaches. Paracetamol should not be used in patients taking a strong opioid to treat pain. Cannabis-based medicines are not recommended. Weak opioids, ketamine and lidocaine are indicated in specific situations only.

CONCLUSION

Interventions commonly recommended by guidelines are not always supported by a robust evidence base. Research is required to evaluate the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, corticosteroids, some invasive anaesthetic techniques, complementary therapies and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.

Opioid-Induced Tolerance and Hyperalgesia

Opioids are very potent and efficacious drugs, traditionally used for both acute and chronic pain conditions. However, the use of opioids is frequently associated with the occurrence of adverse effects or clinical problems. Other than adverse effects and dependence, the development of tolerance is a significant problem, as it requires increased opioid drug doses to achieve the same effect. Mechanisms of opioid tolerance include drug-induced adaptations or allostatic changes at the cellular, circuitry, and system levels. Dose escalation in long-term opioid therapy might cause opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH), which is a state of hypersensitivity to painful stimuli associated with opioid therapy, resulting in exacerbation of pain sensation rather than relief of pain. Various strategies may provide extra-opioid analgesia. There are drugs that may produce independent analgesic effects. A tailored treatment provided by skilled personnel, in accordance with the individual condition, is mandatory. Any treatment aimed at reducing opioid consumption may be indicated in these circumstances. Interventional techniques able to decrease the pain input may allow a decrease in the opioid dose, thus reverting the mechanisms producing tolerance of OIH. Intrathecal therapy with local anesthetics and a sympathetic block are the most common techniques utilized in these circumstances.

Reviewing without a Clinical Background Is Detrimental for Cancer Pain Management

Reviews are a fundamental space for summarizing and spreading knowledge on a particular topic. Methodologic skills may improve the clarity and the meaning of data presentation. A recent editorial choice provided an advanced update on a topic such as cancer pain, providing meaningful and appropriate information on hot topics of cancer pain management. Recent reviews have reported strange and misleading data, suggesting to some adjuvant drugs or opioids for mild-moderate pain instead of opioids on the basis of an incomprehensible analysis performed without any clinical sense. This is a serious problem because such information, published in an authoritative journal, could dis-educate oncologists in their daily practice.